grace That inferiour Bishops cannot be the Apostles Successors first by Scripture and next by demonstrative Reasons Beside many other places of Scripture read but Acts 15.2.4.6.22.23 where yee shall finde Apostles and Elders cleerly distinguished I intreat you to see the places and I doubt not but ye shall receive satisfaction and farther I remember not that ever I heard any Divine affirme Elders and inferiour Bishops to be in rank and degree with the Apostles but that all Divines ancient and moderne accounted Elders to bee inferiour in degree to the Apostles but I will prove by three unanswerable Reasons That Presbyters did not succeed the Apostles My first Reason I will form thus They that were inferiour in degree to the apostles were not the apostles successors in that same order and degree But Presbyters were inferiour in degree to the apostles And therefore Presbyters were not the apostles successors in that same order and degree The Proposition I take for granted for I hope no man will deny it I prove the assumption first by the cōsent of all the divines that ever were in this World next by the cleer evidence of Scripture throughout all the book of God where the Apostles who were chiefe Bishops and Over-seers both of the Pastors and the people are cleerly distinguished from inferiour Bishops who only have the oversight of the people as is evident by the Apostle Paul his directions to the Elders of Ephesus Acts 20. My second Reason I will form thus If Elders be the Apostles Successors then that same power and authoritie necessary for the government of the Church is committed to them by the Apostles as amply as they themselves had it But that same power and authoritie necessary for the government of the Church is not committed unto Elders as amply as the Apostles themselves had it And therefore Elders are not the Successors of the Apostles If any man deny the Proposition I will aske him how it can be possible that Elders can be the Apostles Successors unlesse they succeed them in that same Power and Authoritie Truly it is beyond my capacitie to conceive and understand it I know they cannot succeed them in those things that are extraordinary but in their ordinary power and authoritie and that which is perpetually necessary for the Government of the Church of Christ under the Gospel they must succeed them and they be their successors I prove the Assumption Any one of the Apostles might ordaine Elders so Paul ordained twelve Elders at one time at Ephesus Acts 19. any one might ordain Bishops so Paul ordained Timothy and Titus Bishops of Ephesus and Creet for Timothy it is cleer 2 Tim. 1.6 any one of the Apostles might command Elders and Deacons to preach the Gospel any where as is evident throughout all Pauls Epistles and in the Acts of the Apostles and which I think no Divine will deny any one of them might prescribe Rules and Laws to inferiour Elders so did the Apostle Paul to the Elders of Ephesus Acts 20. to Archippus Col. 4.17 who by the declaration of all the Ancients was Bishop and so superiour to an Elder any one of Apostles might Command Rebuke Censure and correct Elders at their own pleasure as is most evident in Scriptures and in particular in Saint Paul his Epistles now those things no Elder can do by himself and therefore That some ordinary and necessary power which the Apostles had is not committed to inferiour Bishops but to Superiour Here it may be objected That by this Reason Bishops Superiour cannot be the Apostles Successors because they doe not exercise their power and authoritie without the concurrence of the inferiour Bishops they joyne with them in the Ordination of Ministers so they should also in the exercise of Jurisdiction Answer There is no warrant for this in the Scripture it is true wee read the Apostles tooke the concurrence of Ministers in decision of doubts and controversies and also in Ordination so Paul saith that Timothy was ordained by the Presbyterie but there was no direction from Christ for so doing it pleased the Apostles to take their concurrence which they needed not to have done and therefore they did sometimes exercise their Episcopall power by themselves alone as wee may see in the Acts of the Apostles and 2 Tim. 1.6 and many other places of Scripture and did very seldome crave the concurrence of Presbyters so that Bishops do not exercise their power without the concurrence of Presbyters it is not because they are commanded so to doe by Christ and his Apostles but their own voluntary yielding of their right and submitting of themselves to their own Ecclesiastick Laws and Canons of ancient Councels it is as cleer as the Sun That an Elder hath no power of Ordination or Jurisdiction granted to him in the Scriptures what he hath it is but by humane Ordination and hee hath not in any ways Supreame Power granted him by any ancient Councell This is most certaine That a Bishops Ordination is valid and good without a Presbyter and hath warrant from the example of the Apostles but a Presbyter to ordain without the command of a Bishop is not warranted by any example in Scripture nor the Canon of any ancient Councell and so my conclusion stands good That inferiour Bishops are not the Successors of the Apostles My third Reason is this They who were inferiour to those in dignitie and degree who were inferiour to the apostles in place and estimation were not the apostles Successors in all the parts of the Ministeriall Function But Presbyters were inferiour in dignitie and degree to those who were inferiour to the apostles in place and estimation And therefore Presbyters were not Successors to the Apostles in all the parts of the Ministeriall Function The Proposition I know will be granted I prove the assumption That Presbyters were inferiour in dignitie and degree to those who were inferiour to the Apostles in place and estimation Timothy and Titus were inferiour to the Apostles in place and estimation so were all the Evangelists as all Divines acknowledge and yet those were Superiour in dignitie and degree even in the judgment of those who oppose the doctrine delivered in this Treatise That Timothy and Titus were superiour to Presbyters I shall prove it by and by but I will use one Argument yet for the ordinary callings of Apostles and Evangelists and this it is briefly Either the callings of the Apostles and Evangelists were ordinary callings or else we have no ordinary Ministers of the Gospel by Christs institution But this were absurde to say that we had not ordinary Ministers of the Gospel by Christs institution And therefore it is as absurd to say that the callings of Apostles and Evangelists are not ordinary callings I desire all those who oppose this doctrine to loose this knot Now it remayneth to prove that the Bishops succeeded in place of the Apostles and in place of Evangelists inferiour Presbyters
and I will begin with this Argument Either Bishops are the Successors of the Apostles or the Apostles have no Successors at all But that the Apostles have no Successors at all it is false as I have in my judgment unanswerably proved And therefore Bishops are their Successors for I have proved also that Presbyters cannot be their Successors My next argument is this Timothy and Titus were Bishopt Timothy and Titus succeeded unto the Apostles And therefore Bishops succeeded to the Apostles I prove the proposition by this argument that is That Timothy and Titus were Bishops They whose calling was ordinary and had the power of Ordination and Iurisdiction over Presbyters were Bishops But Timothy and Titus their calling was ordinary and had the power of Ordination and Iurisdiction over Presbyters And therefore Timothy and Titus were Bishops The proposition will be granted I prove the assumption and first that Timothy and Titus Calling was ordinary They who had the only Ordinary parts of the Ministeriall Function their Calling was ordinary But Timothy and Titus had the only ordinary parts of the Ministeriall Function And therefore the Calling of Timothy and Titus was ordinary The proposition will be granted I prove the assumption They who had only power to preach the Word and administer the Sacraments c. had only the ordinary parts of the Ministeriall Function But Timothy and Titus had only power to preach the Word and administer the Sacraments c. And therefore Timothy and Titus had the only ordinary parts of the Ministeriall Function I prove the assumption thus Tim. Tit. had neither the gift of Miracles nor the gift of Prophecie nor the gift of Tongues nor the gift of Healing nor any extraordinary gift at all for any thing we read neither were they infallibly guided by the Spirit for if they had had the infallible assistance of the Spirit the Apostle Paul would not have bin so earnest to exhort them to do their dutie in their calling Timothy is exhorted to war a good warfare holding faith a good conscience 1 Tim. 1.18 19. to be an example of Believers in Word in Conversation in Charitie in Spirit in Faith in Puritie 1 Tim. 4.12 and to give attendance to Reading to Exhortation to Doctrine and Meditation and not to neglect the gift that was given him by Prophecie 1 Tim. 4.13 14 15. Titus had also the like exhortations so that it is most certain neither of them had the spirit of infallibilitie nor no extraordinary gift of the Spirit but the only ordinary parts of the Ministerial Function and consequently their calling was ordinary Next I prove their calling was ordinary by this argument They whose calling was by Education Triall and Ordination their calling was ordinary But Timothy and Titus their calling was by Education Triall and Ordination And therefore their calling was ordinary The Proposition needs no probation for they who are called to be Preachers of the Gospell by ordinary means without all question their calling was ordinary for Tim. it is cleere for he had his education under his Grandmother Lois and his Mother Eunice he was tryed by the Apostle and he had the approbation and commendation of the Brethren who were at Listra and Iconium before he would receive him in his companie thereafter he had his breeding for a greater progress in knowledge under the Apostle Paul before he was made a Presbyter much more before he was made a Bishop for this cause Paul saith to him Hold fast the forme of sound words which thou hast heard of me in Faith and Love which is in Christ Jesus as for his ordination it is without all question most cleere and evident all this also may bee said of Titus and therefore I conclude both their callings to bee ordinary Titus his calling as well as Timothies Thirdly I prove their calling to be ordinary by this Argument That calling which was to continue unto the end of the World was an ordinary calling But Timothy and Titus calling was to continue unto the end of the VVorld And therefore Timothy and Titus calling was an ordinary Calling I prove the Assumption That which was to bee propagated untill the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ in the Persons of Tim. and Tit. successors was to continue unto the end of the World But Timothy and Titus calling was to be propagated in the persons of Tim. and Titus successors untill the appearing of our Lord Iesus Christ And therefore Timothy and Titus calling was to continue untill the end of the World The Proposition will be granted I prove the assumption That which must be kept untill the appearing of our Lord Iesus Christ must be propagated by Timothy and Titus successors untill his appearing But the calling of Tim. and Tit. in all the particular parts of it must be kept untill the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ And therefore their calling was to be propagated in the persons of their successors untill his appearing The Proposition is evident because the parts of the Ministeriall function cannot be otherwise kept but by propagation and for this cause the Apostle commands Timothy to propagate 2 Tim. 2.2 The things that thou hast heard of mee saith he before many witnesses the same commit thou to faithfull men who shall be able to teach others The Assumption is also manifest by that strict charge which he giveth unto Timothy in the latter end of the first Epistle cap. 6.13.14 I charge thee saith he in the sight of God who quickneth all things and before Christ Jesus who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession that thou keepe this Commandement without spot unrebukable untill the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ Now this Commandement that he would have Timothy to keepe doth comprehend all the particulars conteined in his Epistle both concerning Doctrine and Government and in particular the whole parts of the Episcopall function which is most obvious to any reader and so still my conclusion stands good That the calling of Timothy and Titus is to bee propagated in the persons of their successors untill the second comming of our Saviour and consequently their calling was an ordinary calling It rests to prove the second part of the assumption of the principall argument that Tim. and Titus had the power of ordination and jurisdiction over presbyters and first I will use this argument ad hominem for all the opposers of Episcopacie maintain That Tim. was an Evangelist and that his power was Apostolicall and so in order and degree above Presbyters and thus upon these grounds I reason after this manner They whose function was Apostolicall had the power of ordination and jurisdiction over Presbyters But Tim. and Titus function was Apostolicall And therefore they had the power of ordination and jurisdiction over Presbyters Next I will prove Timothy and Titus to have the power of ordination of Presbyters This is the Argument They who are commanded to ordaine Elders have the
power of ordination Timothy and Titus are commanded to Ordaine Elders And therefore Tim. and Tit. had the power of Ordination The Proposition cannot in reason be denied for Paul would never have commanded them to do that which they had not power to doe yea the same power of ordination is a part of that Commandement which he is bidden commit to faithfull men to be kept and propagated untill the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ The Assumption is manifest 1. Tim. 5.22 and Tit. 1.5 That they had the power of jurisdiction is proved thus They who are commanded to rebuke censure and correct with all authority and not suffer themselves to be despised to stay foolish questions and vain bablings to excommunicate the obstinate to try and prove those who desire the office of a Bishop and either to admit or reject them according to their weakenesse or ability have the power of jurisdiction spirituall But Timothy and Titus are commanded to do all these things 1 Timothy 4.11 12. 1 Tim. 3.9.17.19.20 1 Tim. 6.17 Tit. 1.11.13 and Tit. 3.10 And therefore Timothy and Titus have the power of jurisdiction spirituall The strength of this Argument I refer to the consideration of the learned for I hope no wise man will say that these priviledges can bee divided from the power of jurisdiction Now I will use one Argument yet to prove that Timothy and Titus had the power of ordination and jurisdiction jointly If those Bishops of whom the Apostle Paul speaks in his Epistles to Timothy and Titus received the power of ordination and jurisdiction by those instructions and precepts which the Apostle Paul sets downe in those Epistles then Timothy and Titus much more received the power of ordination and jurisdiction by those instructions of the Apostle Paul set downe in those Epistles But the first is true and therefore the second is true also The connexion of the proposition is valid enough for if inferiour Bishops whom the Apostle calleth also Elders in that place received the power of ordination and jurisdiction as is asserted by all the opposers of Episcopacie by the Apostles injunctions in those Epistles much more have superiour Bishops as Timothy and Titus were this twofold power by those injunctions this is an argument strong enough ad hominem although I confesse That properly Timothy and Titus have not this twofold power here by the Apostle Paul but only are commanded to put that power in execution which the Apostle Paul before had conferr'd upon them at their ordination which also they are commanded to propagate and transmit unto others for the preservation of the calling and propagation of the Gospell of Christ vntill his second comming to judgement Now for the better cleering of this Doctrine I will prove That Presbyters or inferior Bishops have no ways the power of Ordination and Jurisdiction I desire any Opponent to shew mee the place where it is recorded in the Scripture in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus they find it not Tim. and Tit. are commanded to put all the parts of the Apostolicall power in execution but not those Elders and Deacons of whom the Apostle speakes there they get no Commandement to use that power for it is more then evident That all the injunctions set down in those Epistles are given to Timothy and Titus and all those who were to succeed them in that same order and degree yea to them as they are singular men and as Superiour in Order and Degree to all those towards whom they are to exercise that power and the reason is this because one man in that same Order and Degree cannot have power over an other in that same rank and order one Bishop cannot have power over an other one Presbyter cannot have power over another That man that hath power over an other must be superior unto him in degree or he can have no authority over him that is his own properly delegate he may have but that is not his it is his in whose name he exercises that power But it will be replied That this power is given to a company of Presbyters and not to one in particular Answer This power is given here to Timothy and Titus as singular persons and therefore I will make the matter manifest by a formall argument That power which is committed to certain particular and singular men in the Ministery is not committed to a representative body of Ministers But the power of Ordination and Jurisdiction is committed to certain particular and singular men in the Ministery And therefore it is not committed to a representative body of Ministers The proposition cannot be denied for that which is committed to one singular man in a calling cannot bee said to bee committed to the whole company and trade indefinitely for example that power which is committed to one Alderman in the Citie to wit the Master or Lord Major is not committed to the whole councell of Aldermen he hath a different and superiour power to all the rest As to the assumption That this power was committed to certain singular men as to Timothy and Titus and all those who were to succeed them in the same ranke and order it is more then evident Now to note this by the way since Presbyters doe not succeed to Timothy and Titus in that same order and degree the power of Ordination cannot be committed unto them Furthermore If the power of Ordination and Jurisdiction be committed to Presbyters as they are singular men then every Presbyter hath alike power and authoritie within his own Charge every one is Pope in his own Parish and may command rule and governe as hee thinks good for who can controll him none of his brethren have any more power over him then hee hath over them for every one hath equall power and authoritie transinitted unto them and this is downright Brownisme But it may be replyed That the Presbytery hath power over all particular Ministers Answ Who hath given them this power It is not given them by Christ nor his Apostles If you reply it is agreed upon by common consent I Answer Then at least Presbyteriall Government is not of divine Ordination But I would ask this question what if I should refuse to give my consent to such a government or to subject my self to it how can I be forced to obey their Canons and Laws by whose authoritie the representative Church such as the Presbytery is cannot compell me before I subject my selfe to her authoritie the civill Magistrate cannot do it neither by the doctrine of all my opposites and some would say if any should usurpe authoritie and compell by violence it should be the destroying of our Christian Libertie and tying us whom Christ hath made free and in a word the demolishing of that platforme of government which Christ himselfe did establish any defender of Parochiall government may reason in this kind But it will be againe replyed That this authoritie is given to a
by the mystery of Faith is not requisite in these to whom is only committed the over-sight of the poore More yet Lay Elders cannot answer to the Priests because the Priests sacrificed as well as the High Priest and there was no difference between them in regard of their office of sacrificing except that the High Priest was only appointed by God to offer sacrifice within the Veile once in the yeere for his owne sinnes and the sinnes of the people but the High Priest and the inferiour Priests agreed in these particulars They both burnt Incense and offered Sacrifice 1 Chron. 6.49 They both sounded the Trumpets Numbers 10 and they both slue the Sacrifices 2 Chron. 29.22 They both instructed the people Malachie 2.5 They both judged of Leprosie Leviticus 13.2 So that if Lay Elders will needs succeed in place of inferiour Priests and be the second degree of Church Governours they must preach and administer the Sacraments and so turn Pastors and Doctors and then the Preaching Elders must be Bishops for they must be a degree above them Now follows to shew you the truth of the last branch of the Assumption That three Ranks of Church Governours have governed the Church of God since the dayes of Christ and his Apostles but because it would take up much time and paper and might be wearisome to the Reader I referre him to the Writings of many learned Divines who have proved that point to the full I dare say wee may as well deny all the humane Histories that ever were written as deny the cleere evidence of so many Histories whereby Episcopall Government is defended and accounted by all the Ancients except Aerius who is enrolled among Heretikes by Augustine and Epiphanius for his pains for the first order of Church Government having alwayes two subordinate to it inferiour Bishops and Deacons But here I know it will bee said that I confound Apostles and the chiefe Bishops together and Evangelists and Inferiour Bishops whereas Apostles and Evangelists were extraordinary callings and ceased with themselves Ans Truly this mistake is the cause of all our dissenting one from another in this point for if wee did hold the callings of Apostles and Evangelists to be appointed by Christ to continue in the Christian Church for the Government thereof untill the end of the World as they are indeed this division that is amongst us had never beene And therefore I will endeavour by Gods grace to prove both by Reason and Scripture that these callings are ordinary and cannot without high sacriledge be cast out of Gods Church I will shew you then in what respects their calling was ordinarie and perpetually necessary for the Government of the Church and for what respects it is called extraordinary It is ordinary and perpetually necessary in regard of that power which Christ conferred upon them to preach the Word and Administer the Sacraments and also in regard of the power of Absolution and Excommunication Ordination and Jurisdiction spirituall which our Saviour also granted unto them as all men confesse and in regard of all those parts of the Episcopall Function to be continued untill the second comming of our Saviour and I think no man should denie this neither It is called extraordinary for these respects following First because they were extraordinarie persons not being of the Tribe of Levi who had only ordinary power in those days to be instruments of Gods publike Worship and to serve at the Altar Next because their gifts were extraordinary for Christ who was anointed with the oile of gladnesse above his fellows and had the spirit in super-abundance hee gave his Apostles an abundant measure of the spirit but to after-ages hee imparted only a certaine Sufficiencie Grace for Grace Thirdly the extent of their charge was extraordinary they were tyed to no setled Residence but the whole World was their Diocesse Go ye unto all the World saith our Saviour Fourthly The manner of their calling was extraordinary without Education Tryall or Ordination Fifthly they had the infallibilitie of the Spirit in matters of Faith they could not erre And lastly their calling was extraordinary quo ad ante â—ut not quo ad post even in respect of the ordinarie parts of the Ministeriall Function quo ad ante because the calling of Church-men in those dayes was to offer up Sacrifices unto God of Bullocks Rams and Lambs and other Creatures and to burne incense into him but so was not the calling of Apostles Their calling was to preach the Word and administer the Sacraments open the Gates of Heaven to the Penitent and shut them upon the impenitent c. and so I may say Their Calling in Analogie to the Priests calling under the Law is to offer up the Sacrifice of Prayer Prayse and Thanksgiving to God and to teach every man to present their bodies in a living holy and acceptable Sacrifice Quo ad post it was not extraordinarie because Christ established that government for the Christian Church in all Ages to come or else none at all for other wee see not but this is manifest yea our Saviour continued the Apostolicall and Episcopall calling in regard of the substance of it in the full latitude of Apostolicall Authoritie and all this I will prove after this manner and first If the callings of the High Priest Priests and Levits was not extraordinary quo ad post in the dayes of Moses then the callings of Apostles Evangelists and Deacons was not extraordinary quo ad post in the dayes of Christ But the first is true and therefore the second The reason of the connexion of the Proposition is this because those callings of Priests and Levits were newly established in the House of God and the Church was not so governed before and so although they were extraordinary quo ad ante in regard of the time by-past yet not in regard of the time to come so I thinke that these callings established by Christ for the Government of the Church under the Gospel although they were extraordinary in regard of the time past yet not in regard of the time to come more then the callings of the Priests and Levits under the Law For why shall these Governours instituted by Christ in the insancie of the Church cease to be of that Dignitie and Authoritie in after ages that they were of in the first Constitution more then those Governours which his Father appointed to rule the Church of the Iews at the first promulgation of the Law I would faine have my opposite to shew mee a reason for the one more then the other Truly those who took offence at the Superioritie of Church Governours under the Law might have alleaged that after the dayes of Moses and Aaron Churchmen were all to be of equall Authoritie because their calling was extraordinary in regard of the time past But I am confident that as God the Father appointed the one government to remain untill his sonnes comming in
the flesh so God the Son appointed the other to continue until his second comming to judgement and both to remaine in that same case for Dignitie and Authoritie wherein they were first established My second Argument is this If the callings of the Apostles c. cannot be called extraordinary quo ad post neither in regard of their extraordinary gifts nor extraordinary manner of calling nor the extent of their charge nor their infallibilitie of Spirit then it is not extraordinary at all in regard of the time to come But for none of these foresaid respects can their calling be called extraordinary in regard of the time to come And therefore it was not extraordinary in regard of the time to come I prove the Assumption and first that their calling cannot be called extraordinary in regard of their extraordinary gifts the gift of Prophecie and the gift of Miracles c. for then if it shall please God to bestow extraordinary gifts upon ordinary Ministers of the Gospel their calling should cease any longer to be ordinary which is absurd to say for it is evident in Scripture That ordinary Ministers both of the Law the Gospel have had extraordinary gifts as Samuel who was a Priest which was an ordinarie calling for although Samuel was not of the Tribe of Levi yet he was a Nazarite who might by Gods own appointment serve at the Altar and yet he had extraordinary gifts 1 Sam. 1.11 Zachary was a Priest and yet he had the gift of Prophecie Iohn 11.50 51. so the Apostle Iames saith That Elders in his time had the gift of Healing Iam. 5.14 15. and yet no man will say that the calling of an Elder was extraordinary other then are now so the calling of a King is an ordinary calling and yet David King of Israel was a Prophet as well as a King and in a word we read in ancient Histories That many Church-men have had extraordinary gifts and yet their callings were ordinarie and so I conclude that extraordinary gifts doe not make an extraordinary calling Next the extent of their charge doth not make their calling extraordinary because necessitie requireth that it should be so untill the time that the Gospel should be propagated to the ends of the earth so that if there be any Nation yet unconverted as without doubt there are too many the Governours of the Church are bound so far as they are able to labour their conversion to the faith of Jesus Christ for I thinke no man will say but that that charge given to the Apostles goe teach all Nations c. remayns still in force Thirdly as for the manner of their calling being without Education Triall and Ordination it makes it extraordinarie in regard of the time past but not in regard of the time to come for the High Priest and Priests under the Law the manner of their calling was extraordinary in regard of the time past and without both Triall and Education and yet notwithstanding their calling was Ordinary in regard of the time to come and to be continued in the Church untill Christ his comming in the flesh And lastly infallibilitie of Spirit which the Apostles had makes not their calling extraordinary for they behoved to be infallibly guided because they were to lay the foundation whereupon others were to Build they were to Plant others only to Water that which they had planted they were to establish the Faith which all ages to come are bound to professe and so it was most necessary that they should be infallibly guided by the Spirit Further Christs promise is not only to be with his Apostles but with them and their Successours untill the end of the World And loe I am with you saith hee untill c. Now I will prove by evidence of Scripture That the calling of the Apostles was an ordinary calling and to be continued untill the second comming of our Saviour with the same Power and Authoritie both for Ordination and Jurisdiction which they had themselves My first testimony is in Mat. 28.19 out of which I form this argument They that were commanded to teach and baptize all Nations untill the end of the World their calling was ordinary and to continue untill the end of the World But the Apostles were commanded to teach and baptise all Nations untill the end of the World And therefore their calling was ordinary and to continue untill the end of the World The reason of the Proposition is this because the Apostles were not other wayes able to keepe this Commandement but in their Successors in the Generations to come if it had pleased God by his Omnipotent Power to preserve them alive and keep them in health of bodie and strength of Minde for that end I thinke none would have been more able then they but it pleased him not to doe so and therefore it is most evident that this Commandement must bee kept in their Successours and consequently That the calling of the Apostles was ordinary in regard of the time to come My second Testimonie is in Marke 16.15 The Argument is this They who were commanded by Christ to preach the Gospel to every creature that is to all men without exception untill the end of the World their calling was ordinary and to continue untill the end of the World But the Apostles were commanded by Christ to preach the Gospel to all men without exception untill the end of the World And therefore their calling was ordinary and to continue untill the end of the World This Argument is of that same force with the former for if they to whom our Saviour gives this charge were to preach the Gospel to all and every man without exception then the Apostles being not able to doe it themselves were bound to deliver that commandement to faithful men and they again to others and so from age to age to be traduced as long as there is men upon earth to whom the Gospel must be preached and so still The calling of the Apostles must be ordinary and to be continued untill the end of the World The third Testimony is in Matthew 18.18 and John 20.23 The Argument is this They to whom our Saviour Christ gave the Keys of the Kingdome of Heaven their calling was ordinarie and to continue untill the end of the World But our Saviour Christ gave to his Apostles the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven And therefore their calling was ordinarie and to continue untill the end of the World This has ever beene constantly maintained That our Saviour Christ gave the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to the Apostles and their Successors to this end that as long as there were sinners upon earth the gates of Heaven might be opened to the Penitent and shut upon the impenitent so as long as there is a Sinner upon earth to repent or a penitent Sinner to be pardoned as long must there be men endued with Apostolicall power to preach Repentance to all
company of Presbyters Acts 8.14 and 11.22 and 15.6 7 8. to the 30. and 1 Cor. 5.3 4 5. Answer These things were done in the infancie of the Church before the Government was established and so can be no rule for after ages some will so answer I answer further there is not a word there that will confirme Presbyteriall government for none of the meetings spoken of in those places consist of persons having the like and equall authoritie but all that was done in them was done by Apostolicall power by the power of the Apostles they were convened together by the Apostles moderation those meetings were governed by their authoritie all things were concluded they had full and absolute power in their own hands although it pleased them to do nothing without the consent of their Brethren of an inferiour Order yee will find all that I have said true if yee will be pleased to see the places But most cleerly it appeareth 1 Cor. 5.3 4 5. where the Apostle by his power and authoritie coÌ„mandeth the Corinthian Ministers to excommunicate the incestuous person in an open assembly or rather to intimate that excommunication which he had already pronounced for thus he speaketh For I verily as absent in body but present in spirit have judged alreadie as though I were present concerning him that hath done this deed In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ when ye are gathered together and my spirit with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ to deliver such an one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus I hope this meeting was enjoyned by the Apostle upon an extraordinary occasion nothing was done but by his speciall appointment Here is nothing to warrant the authority of Presbyteriall Government there seems something to be in the words for Parochiall If there had been Parishes and Lay-elders in those days and truly if I were not of that judgement That the Calling of the Apostles were an ordinary Calling and to be continued with the same latitude of power and authoritie in their Successors untill the end of the World I might easily be moved to approve of Parochiall Government but never of Presbyteriall and truly if the Callings of the Apostles and Evangelists be not acknowledged to be instituted by Christ for the perpetuall Government of Gods Church Parochiall Government is that which hath greatest shew of warrant in the Scriptures as for Presbyteriall it hath not so much as any shew at all in the whole book of God Now follows that I cleere the doubts and first I know it will be objected That by this doctrine I condemne all the Churches of Christ that are governed after that manner Ans I condemne not the Churches but the Government Some perhaps may reply That since I make Episcopal government to be Christs institution I charge them with a very grosse errour I answer Let them see to that I cannot call evill good nor good evill unlesse I make my selfe lyable to the curse pronounced neither will any thing excuse them except necessity for both Gods Law and mans Law doth dispence with it but because there is no necessitie let men beware for Ego liberavi animam meam Furthermore it will be alleaged That Timothy and Titus and the Bishops of old were not like our Bishops They had not that power and authoritie nor that Lordly Government that Bishops have now They were not Barons Lords Earles Princes in such kind as they are now They had not power over the bodies and estates of offenders as Bishops have now They might not punish with the Civill Sword as well as the Spirituall Ans In Episcopall Government there are two things The one is Spirituall and de jure divino by divine right The other is Civill and de dono humano of humane gift and by the donation of Kings and Princes That is their Civill Honour their Civill Power their Temporalities their Revenues as to be Barons in Parliament to judge in causes Temporall to inflict temporall punishment all these they have by the free gift of Kings and Princes and many Kings have been very liberall in this kind to Churchmen and not without warrant from God neither according to that of the Apostle The Elders that rule wel are worthy of double honour and in speciall they that labour in the Word Doctrine 1 Tim. 5. And why should any man be offended to see Honor given to Church-men May not Kings and Princes give honour to any subject they please or are not Churchmen capable of Civill Honour and Power now under the Gospell aswell as they were under the Law As to the first I think no man will deny but Kings and Princes may advance such of their Subjects as they please it is their speciall prerogative I make no question of it And truly I see no more reason that any man should make question of the other but that Churchmen are as capable of Civill Honour and Power now under the Gospel as they were under the Law it is forbidden in no part of the New Testament I am sure hath God forbidden Ministers to give their advice to Kings and Princes for the better correcting of Vice and Sin and for managing all things in the State so that God thereby may be the more glorified and the Kingdome of Jesus Christ advanced or hath God forbidden Princes to crave their advice It was well said of a Divive That it is well with the Church when godly Prophets hang as precious Earings at the Princes eares Erasmus said well in an Epistle to Iohn Alasco If we had moe Bishops like Ambrose we should have more Emperours like Theodosius But I would aske any man this question Have not Christian Kings as great need of the concurrent Counsell and Assistance of the Governours of the Church now as the Kings of Israel had under the Law and was there ever any religious King among the Iews who had not conâ—inually the High priest to second him in all his affaires was not Aaron next unto Moses was not Eleazar next unto Iosua Had not David Zador and Abiather continually in his company Was not Azariah next unto Salomon and did not Ioash that which was right in the sight of the Lord as long as Iehoida lived and was not Hilkia chief Counsellour to Iosia and Amaria chief Judge under Jehosaphat Truly I hold this for a sure ground That what ever was done under the Law not being commanded by God then it is as lawfull for us now under the Gospell to doe the same except it be forbidden us and wee need not doubt but it will be as well approved by God now as it was then But which is more yet If any thing be commanded by God under the Law which is not ceremoniall and typicall it is then much more lawfull I think for us to do now Did not the Lord himselfe command the people of